I'm planning on brewing a Blue Corn Cream Ale this weekend with Blue Corn Grits. Recipe calls for 84% Base Malt of 4 lbs. 2 Row and 4 lbs. Pilsner. I've always been told that when brewing with Pilsner Malt, 90 boil is need to get rid of that DMS. My question is, being that it's only 4lbs, is 90 min boil really needed. I'm also worried that the wort will become too caramelized and malty due to the 90 min. boil. I appreciate anyone's help and advice.

I had always heard the same about the 90 minute boil for pilsner malt for the same purpose. However, my experience with 60 minute boils with pilsner malt has proven otherwise. I find 60 minutes to be sufficient and without any detriment to the beer, IMO. Many other folks have had the same experience and come to the same conclusion as well. I can, in good conscience, recommend a shorter 60 minute boil even when using 100% pilsner malt. Cheers!

Wish I would have read this before last Sunday. I did my first 90 minute boil.

Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday. Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60, but as it pertains to DMS (or it's precursors) then I've found 60 to be enough on my system with the malts I use. At least you have a baseline from which to work now so the next time you brew this beer, if you decide to use a 60 minute boil instead, you have something to compare with, so it's still useful to have that experience. At least, that's how I do/would look at it. Cheers!

Coming from the hot rodding hobby, there's an old saying, "cheap, fast, and good: pick two." In my experience, that applies to not just speed parts, but brewing too. (ok, maybe replace "fast" with "easy".) Everything has trade offs, the question is do those trade off align with your goals?

The trade offs for a no-boil beer doesn't align with my goals, so I don't plan on trying. YMMV.

Until you try it how do you know there's a negative to the tradeoffs?

Agreed. Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

I've tried two no boil (kettle soured) beers and did not like them much. One was mediocre-okay (berliner) and I finished it, the other (gose) was poor enough that I dumped after about a gallon. Overall, the impression I was left with was "too field-raw" and not "beery" enough (this is ignoring the sour aspect). I will boil these style beers from now on when/if I make them again because I've had good berliner's and gose, none of which had this "too field-raw" character.

To bring this back to the original topic, my experience is that I prefer a beer that has been boiled for some number of minutes, but most do not need a 90 minute boil. Sixty minute boils seem to be a very safe length for nearly every style of beer, from my perspective.

Agreed. Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages. Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.

Agreed. Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages. Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.

I can understand that perspective for sure. Kettle souring is a little bit of PITA too, and my results were not impressive, therefore I have no intentions of trying again anytime soon, but at least I tried and have my own experience from which to speak.

I'm intrigued with your 20 minute boil successes. Once I can finish up getting a handle on the changes I've implemented over the past year, I will probably attempt a short boil like this. I'm not dying to save time on my brewday, but that's a solid 40 minute savings (probably more since I'd be dealing with less overall water throughout the entire process, which should translate to extra minutes saved).

Agreed. Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages. Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.

I can understand that perspective for sure. Kettle souring is a little bit of PITA too, and my results were not impressive, therefore I have no intentions of trying again anytime soon, but at least I tried and have my own experience from which to speak.

I'm intrigued with your 20 minute boil successes. Once I can finish up getting a handle on the changes I've implemented over the past year, I will probably attempt a short boil like this. I'm not dying to save time on my brewday, but that's a solid 40 minute savings (probably more since I'd be dealing with less overall water throughout the entire process, which should translate to extra minutes saved).

Agreed. Until you try it how else will you know what it has to offer, afterall the positives may outweigh the negatives(this goes for low oxygen brewing as well hint, hint, wink, wink, nudge, nudge Denny).

A very good point, but keep in mind that I don't contend that low oxygen brewing may not have advantages. Simply that I'm unwilling to go through the process because it doesn't fit the way I like to brew.

And that's kinda why I'm not interested in trying a no-boil beer. My current interests are historical British beers, and modern German lagers. With the former, longer seems to better, but I've got some more playing to do there. I've had my best results with 90 minute boils, as specified in the source recipes. 60 minutes hasn't worked as well, and although I've got a few more variables to play with it may just be where I stay for those styles. I haven't yet brewed enough lager to have any real data on what I think boil length does on my system, but IMO a no-boil German-style lager and a German lager are going to be two completely different things. Maybe the no-boil beer would be good to some, but that's not the beer in my head I'm trying to brew.

And that's kinda why I'm not interested in trying a no-boil beer. My current interests are historical British beers, and modern German lagers. With the former, longer seems to better, but I've got some more playing to do there. I've had my best results with 90 minute boils, as specified in the source recipes. 60 minutes hasn't worked as well, and although I've got a few more variables to play with it may just be where I stay for those styles. I haven't yet brewed enough lager to have any real data on what I think boil length does on my system, but IMO a no-boil German-style lager and a German lager are going to be two completely different things. Maybe the no-boil beer would be good to some, but that's not the beer in my head I'm trying to brew.

You may be right. It may be better for some styles than others. OTOH, it may work great for everything. I have other experiments in progress, but I intend to try no boil. Why? Because it subtracts from my brew day rather than adds to it.

Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday. Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60,

Well, there is that thiobarbituric acid increase from the extended boil. That is a staling precursor. But as you mention, it could be a welcome thing in some styles.

Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday. Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60,

Well, there is that thiobarbituric acid increase from the extended boil. That is a staling precursor. But as you mention, it could be a welcome thing in some styles.

is thisincrease a function of time, boil vigor or both? Would a 90 minute boil at 5%/hr evaporation rate produce less than a 60 minute boil with 15%/hr evaporation rate?

Well, there's certainly no harm in the longer boil, it just adds an extra 30 minutes to the brewday. Depending on what you're end goal is, you may actually prefer the results from a 90 minute boil vs 60,

Well, there is that thiobarbituric acid increase from the extended boil. That is a staling precursor. But as you mention, it could be a welcome thing in some styles.

Very good; thanks for sharing that nugget of information. Without knowing more about it, I would say that's another excellent reason to keep boil length to some undetermined lower limit. I've been happy with 60 minute boils when using pilsner malt (as well as other malts) so that's my typical length. One of the reasons is that, from my experience, I feel as though the IBU bitterness formula estimates don't match my perception of the finished beer the closer I get to 0minutes, and for me it becomes a bit of a crap shoot at around 30 minute additions in terms of perceived bitterness in the finished beer versus the calculated value. For some styles it seems to leave them with a different balance than I had intended. I have a few recipes where I add the bittering addition at 45min remaining and it is perceived (by me) to the level of my expectations; but 60 is still my safe number for bittering additions . In regards to a 20minute short boil, I'm not certain how I'd handle the bittering addition coupled with a 8% low vigor boiloff rate - double/triple the 60minute addition?? . Nonetheless, thanks for the bit about thiobarbituric acid increase from extended boils.

On the other hand, for styles that benefit from oxidation (I'm sold on low O2 brewing, I just don't believe it's appropriate for every style) a 90 minute boil might help...Doesn't Toby use an extended boil for his Scotch Ale? It'd certainly explain why I've seemed to have better luck with longer boils with British styles. (Real ale must be slightly oxidized almost by definition.)

On the other hand, for styles that benefit from oxidation (I'm sold on low O2 brewing, I just don't believe it's appropriate for every style) a 90 minute boil might help...Doesn't Toby use an extended boil for his Scotch Ale? It'd certainly explain why I've seemed to have better luck with longer boils with British styles. (Real ale must be slightly oxidized almost by definition.)

Yes. Toby does a long boil for his wee heavy. I was impressed with the results and just recently did a 90 minute boil for my old ale (which admittedly is not necessarily to bjcp style guidelines).

I now do reduced boil-off. I have been doing 90 min mashes, and 90 min boils. My beers are the best I've ever made, not saying much. Is it because I moved to 90/90, or is it just getting better at the process? I would love to cut an hour from brew day. I think I will go 90/60 on my RIS I plan to brew tomorrow. I doubt 90 min boil is needed. Now people are covering their BK with reduced boil-off. Lots of great tests and changes going on. Glad everyone comes here to share experiences.